Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Lost in all this Linsanity is the reality that the Knicks weren't entirely sure about Jeremy Lin -- at least not as much as Lin believed they were. The kid who spent three weeks averaging about 25 points per game and whose outward humility rivaled only that of Tim Tebow was also the dude who undeferentially spewed, "We gotta learn to play together," upon Anthony's return, instead of acknowledging he was the one who needed to learn to play with Melo.

It was Lin who then sauntered around the rest of the season acting as if he'd already accomplished all that was required, as if he was the face of the franchise and the Knicks were supposed to feel privileged to have him on board.

"You have to blame Jeremy Lin at least for a little of the way this went down," a source close to Knicks management told ESPNNewYork.com's Ian O'Connor of Lin's departure to the Houston Rockets for a three-year, $25.1 million deal. "LeBron James and Dwyane Wade worked together with Pat Riley to construct a deal to end up in Miami, and here it looked like Lin was trying to construct a deal to end up in Houston."

"You have to blame Jeremy Lin at least for a little of the way this went down," a source close to Knicks management told ESPNNewYork.com's Ian O'Connor of Lin's departure to the Houston Rockets for a three-year, $25.1 million deal. "LeBron James and Dwyane Wade worked together with Pat Riley to construct a deal to end up in Miami, and here it looked like Lin was trying to construct a deal to end up in Houston."

Blame him for what? Getting the best contract he could? The Knicks invest more in PR than any team, I have been told, and are the absolute worst at it.

I really liked that link on rebounding, NJ. I wonder the extent to which this is known/acted on in the NBA. I guess that's why 3p shooters seem to get their own rebounds a fair bit? Because no one expects it?

I really liked that link on rebounding, NJ. I wonder the extent to which this is known/acted on in the NBA. I guess that's why 3p shooters seem to get their own rebounds a fair bit? Because no one expects it?

No way of knowing, but my assumption is that there are probably at least a handful of teams that are well versed in this sort of stuff. I can imagine that a guy like Kevin Love probably pays attention to this data and what seems to be a supernatural rebounding ability may, in fact, be part scouting/research. Or, it could be that he's the type of guy that doesn't pay attention to the data but picks up on it.

I really liked that link on rebounding, NJ. I wonder the extent to which this is known/acted on in the NBA.

I looked at that and there isn't anything counterintuitive. Nothing that wouldn't be ingrained by playing basketball and fighting for a few thousand missed shots. I'm sure teams are aware of things like this and most have probably looked at similar data long before this article was published, but it's not something that can give you a competitive advantage.

I'm sure teams are aware of things like this and most have probably looked at similar data long before this article was published, but it's not something that can give you a competitive advantage.

I think where it stands the possibility of becoming a competitive advantage is if specific players have unique patterns to their missed shots that could be scouted from the numbers. I have no idea if the sample sizes would be large enough to say such a thing with statistical confidence.

That reminds me of the stories of Dennis Rodman studying film of Jordan and Pippen to learn where their rebounds most frequently went when they shot from specific locations. That always seemed smart to me, and adding better data only improves it.

That reminds me of the stories of Dennis Rodman studying film of Jordan and Pippen to learn where their rebounds most frequently went when they shot from specific locations. That always seemed smart to me, and adding better data only improves it.

_________________________________________

I was about to mention this; it was in The Art of a Beautiful Game. Ballard also said IIRC that Rodman asked to rebound Jordan's and Pippen's misses in practice so that he could get a feel for where the ball went when they missed.

Also heard the Bulls won't match on Asik...because they want Darko? Bulls fans, help me out here...

While they might end up with Darko instead, it's because Jerry Reinsdorf is a cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap bastard and refuses to pay the luxury tax. Just like Radmonovic is cheaper than Korver, Darko is cheaper than Asik.

Still, he never accepted it until he got the call from Grunwald himself Tuesday night. Even with all the reports that the Knicks would not match the offer, Lin held on to the idea that they might just be false reports, according to a source close to him. Throughout the process, Lin tried to keep an even keel. He tried to remember that it was business, and to keep his emotions out of it.

His experience with celebrity during the height of Linsanity helped. When reports surfaced that Anthony called Lin's contract offer from Houston "ridiculous," Lin refused to believe it, the source said. He had seen many false reports during his fabulous Knicks run and chalked up the Melo story as just another inaccuracy. He told those close to him that Anthony had to have been either misquoted or had his quotes taken out of context. He never believed Anthony belittled him or didn't want him back.

It was the same with J.R. Smith, even though Smith was quoted on the record as saying the size of Lin's contract could become a problem in the locker room with some Knicks who had more experience than the 23-year-old Lin. Still, Lin was bothered by suggestions that leaked out that some thought he had developed a sense of entitlement and become big-headed and arrogant during the height of his fame, and that he had rubbed his teammates the wrong way.

He also didn't like the idea emerging from some corners that he had sold out his teammates by not playing in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference first round against the Miami Heat even though he was "85 percent" healthy.

"You go through a range of emotions when you hear that stuff, especially because it's so inaccurate," a source close to Lin said. "Initially, you're upset, then disappointed, then angry and you even think about getting even. But when it's all said and done, you have to stick to who you are and that usually prevails in the end.

"Ultimately, Jeremy looked at it as reporters being reporters. He never felt anything against the Knicks, and he has nothing against them now. The Knicks gave him an opportunity that was great and he cherished it."

So ... Batum is gone. Lee is gone. Mayo is gone. You would think with the complete crap 2 & 3 players the Wolves threw out there last year they could easily find better options, but so far they are pretty empty (and no I don't consider Gimpy or Ruskie to be the answers other than in very limited minute roles).

Is there anything left, or is next year another year wandering the desert? Am I missing something?

In many ways Dennis Rodman is one of the more interesting dudes in basketball in a long time. I don't mean the goofy persona, but the whole package. Such an odd bundle of skills and quirks and drives, just really interesting.

Amazingly enough, Howard's agent has refuted the reports that Howard will sign with the Lakers if traded there and said unequivocally that Howard will test FA no matter where he goes, "including Brooklyn."

Some guy posted in the comments section that Howard's "Decision" special will have "2 seasons and 24 episodes."

Story about Rodman today: he saw his dad for the first time in 42 years yesterday, in Manila, where Rodman is playing with a "barnstorming team." Rodman's dad whose name is (really) Philander, claims to have fathered 29 kids by 16 different women.

In an interview with MSG's Alan Hahn during a Knicks summer league game, the dearly departed Landry Fields, of all people, delivered the Dolan dagger. "Poison pill?" Fields said of his buddy's Year 3 salary. "This is a Tic Tac for James Dolan."

I agree that he won't look like his worth that contract - and that he'd better off next to a behemoth like Howard. But, he's been really effective (better, say, than Rashard Lewis ever was) thus far and he's only 24.

I agree that he won't look like his worth that contract - and that he'd better off next to a behemoth like Howard. But, he's been really effective (better, say, than Rashard Lewis ever was) thus far and he's only 24.

Will he be able to take roughly 8 3pers per 36 in that offense? If not, he'll look pretty crappy.

From looking at Yahoo looks like the only thing holding up a Howard deal is whether Bynum says he's willing to extend in Cleveland. Assuming it's that close:

Bynum's motivation would be say hell no to an extension. Kill the trade, and if Howard isn't coming to the Lakers Bynum gets his max money and continue in the footsteps of Mikan, Kareem, and Shaq.

Despite that, maybe Lakers can convince Cleveland that it's all an act, and once Bynum's chance of staying in LA are gone, he'll change his tune and be willing to sign where he can get the most money.

Cleveland can give up what Lakers don't have - the draft picks to Orlando. But I'm curious to see how Orlando gets rid of bad contracts this way. Lakers don't have room, and that seems like too much for Cleveland to do, give up picks, take back bad contracts, when the return is only Bynum. Can't see them offering as much as Houston would for Howard.

From looking at Yahoo looks like the only thing holding up a Howard deal is whether Bynum says he's willing to extend in Cleveland. Assuming it's that close:

I think someone said this earlier, but I will reiterate that I think Orlando will wait until Houston's RFA issues are resolved to weigh the offers. The LAL/CLE deal may make the most sense at that point, but I can't see them jumping at it without actually seeing the alternative.

better off next to a behemoth like Howard

Even if Unibrow isn't Howard, there's a fair chance he becomes "a behemoth."

I think I agree with Simmons's take on the Houston/LA/Orlando proposal: if Bynum and bad contracts is the return, isn't Houston better off sticking with (more or less) this young group, figuring out what they have, and then making some moves next year? It's not that Bynum isn't potentially a top 2 caliber guy on a great team, it's the other contracts they have to take on to make it happen. If you do that for Howard, it's almost certainly worth it, but for Bynum?

I guess the obvious counter is that there might not be much available next summer, which is certainly a fair point.

Let's face it, most of these guys in the middle of payrolls won't be worth their contracts. They're the worst contracts in the NBA - good players being paid like All-Stars.

I guess this is true, but one could argue that because of the odd impact of max contracts that the mid range guys are OK, but the upper end is wrong. One reason this view might be true is that there are only so many slots (on a team and on the court at any one time) so a marginal upgrade in a slot is worth it, especially since there are only so many "worth more than the max" guys and if you can't get one of them you should still try to improve somewhere.

I am not sure I buy the logic above, but I don't think it is completely out there.

Even if Unibrow isn't Howard, there's a fair chance he becomes "a behemoth."

I meant more in terms of build than ability. Davis isn't really a low post beast.

Will he be able to take roughly 8 3pers per 36 in that offense?

Based on what he did in Orlando without Howard on the floor - yeah, he potentially could. His defensive board numbers might also get a bump up. I'm a bit concerned with NO's lack of a point guard - that could be a problem.
He's more of an efficiency guy than bulk scorer anyway.

Let's face it, most of these guys in the middle of payrolls won't be worth their contracts. They're the worst contracts in the NBA - good players being paid like All-Stars.

Yup (subj. to Andrew's 1447). (Although I think there's a possible model out there based on midlevel guys, but it'd be real hard to pull off.) That doesn't mean none of them are - Anderson's been remarkably valuable (relative to rep) by almost any regular season measure.

OT in the OT, any of you guys ever been to Toronto? I'm going for a wedding in August and will have one day before I have to attend wedding activities and would love to get pointers on stuff to definitely check out.

OT in the OT, any of you guys ever been to Toronto? I'm going for a wedding in August and will have one day before I have to attend wedding activities and would love to get pointers on stuff to definitely check out.

Depends what kinds of activities you want to do. I can't say anything about clubs and bars. In my case a vacation mostly centers on things that a 1.5 and 4 year old girl can enjoy. We went to Toronto Islands, which is pretty cool. You have to take a ferry over to it, no cars allowed. Lots of parks, playgrounds, beaches, and an amusement park. They even have the site of Babe Ruth's first professional homerun - yup, the Toronto AAA team was on this Island back in 1914. We didn't get to that side of the island though.

Going to the top of the CN Tower is something that you sort of feel obliged to do, I mean, you're there and who knows when you'll get a chance to take a vacation there again, right? But it wasn't that enjoybale. You wait about a half hour to get an elevator taking you up, walk around, snap a few pictures, and then you've got to wait another half hour to get back down.

I second going to the City Islands. You can rent a bike on the island and ride around very easily. There is even a nude beach!

Plenty of ethnic neighborhoods in Toronto too if you like eating random tasty foods. Skydome is a giant concrete monstrosity with no soul, but it is right next to the CN Tower and there is a brewery that you can tour across the street. Hockey Hall of Fame is in town but wasn't interested.

OT in the OT, any of you guys ever been to Toronto? I'm going for a wedding in August and will have one day before I have to attend wedding activities and would love to get pointers on stuff to definitely check out.

Hockey Hall of Fame, if you're at all into that sport. CN Tower is pretty neat too. Blue Jays game if they're at home. All of the above are walking distance from each other and can be done in a day.

Simmons' new column about the NBA off-season uses a bunch of Game of Thrones quotes and references, so people who watch that show might get a smile out of that. I got a laugh out of his amusing rationalizations about the Steve Nash and Ray Allen team-switches, and after the 19/26 game that he saw with his dad and the title, he now talks about James with enough fear and reverence to satisfy even his ESPN stathead colleagues.

I think it was brought up when the Dream Team doc came out, but has anyone finished the book McCallum wrote yet? Working my way through it; as much as I enjoyed the documentary I am enjoying the book even more.

1. Forgot about the McCallum book. Currently working my way through Game of Thrones, so once I'm done with that (next year or so) will read that.

2. Thanks to everyone on the Toronto advice. Think I'll do the CN Tower and City Islands. Hope it's feasible to do both in a day.

3. I'll look into the Association stuff some more. I was thinking of it more along the lines of when 2K13 comes out. I know a few of my IRL friends are interested in doing it and wanted to see if there was interest here as well so we could maybe have a decent sized league with a relatively short schedule. Don't want it to be anything overly time consuming. Will keep you guys posted.

I think it was brought up when the Dream Team doc came out, but has anyone finished the book McCallum wrote yet? Working my way through it; as much as I enjoyed the documentary I am enjoying the book even more.

I just read the first half of it on the beach today. Love it so far, will have more to say about it when I finish it.

Supposedly, Jorts is on waivers - he was surprisingly useful last year. Seems like the rockets could get something for him (or leuer, going back a few days) if they tried (possibly a trivial return, still)

Nazr may go to chi (not BRK); Asik replacement?

I was wrong on hill (who I initially thought would be out of Lal's price range ... Changed my mind a ways back but there are a few thoughts I don't vomit on this board). Nice keep, but I wonder if his #s on d are real (they're real bad)

In that Game of Thrones-themed piece, Simmons points out that with hindsight it appears that Stern did the right thing in vetoing the Chris Paul-to-LA deal. His opinion may be compromised by his fandom, and mine certainly is (also, we may have discussed this upthread somewhere), but I'm persuaded. They kept Gordon, they got Rivers (with Minnesota's #1), and they were bad enough for a year to luck into the #1 pick. Meanwhile, Scola's been amestied and Martin had a pretty mediocre year (though Dragic was good).

By the way, "did the right thing" might be overstating Simmons's position; he also says Stern "disgraced the league" with that move. Just, in basketball terms, it turned out to be the right move for New Orleans.

For the first time in a long while, the Suns' salary cap picture looks decent, if not promising. No crippling contracts, in terms of either money or length; a good mix of expirings over the next couple of seasons.

Must say I'm fairly pleased with how the post-Nash rebuild has started.

In that Game of Thrones-themed piece, Simmons points out that with hindsight it appears that Stern did the right thing in vetoing the Chris Paul-to-LA deal. His opinion may be compromised by his fandom, and mine certainly is (also, we may have discussed this upthread somewhere), but I'm persuaded. They kept Gordon, they got Rivers (with Minnesota's #1), and they were bad enough for a year to luck into the #1 pick. Meanwhile, Scola's been amestied and Martin had a pretty mediocre year (though Dragic was good).

So if the Bobcats had won the lottery like they were "supposed" to, causing Gordon to leave for Phoenix, it would have been the wrong thing to do? That seems like an awfully convenient short-term post hoc analysis. Let's say that Davis has Oden levels of injuries for the next two years. Does it go back to being a poor basketball move? Or let's say that Gordon keeps on getting hurt every year and never develops into an elite player, leaving the Hornets capped out.

I think the Clippers trade was poor value. In addition, the Hornets haven't even made the playoffs, let alone contended, with the guys they got from the trade. I thought the Stern decision was horrible both in a precedent setting and basketball POV.

For the first time in a long while, the Suns' salary cap picture looks decent, if not promising. No crippling contracts, in terms of either money or length; a good mix of expirings over the next couple of seasons.

Have the Suns used the amnesty? If not, Channing Frye would be a likely candidate.

So if the Bobcats had won the lottery like they were "supposed" to, causing Gordon to leave for Phoenix, it would have been the wrong thing to do? That seems like an awfully convenient short-term post hoc analysis.

Well, even if the Bobcats won the lottery, Gordon couldn't have just left for Phoenix: New Orleans had the right to match. Now, maybe if Davis isn't coming he makes a big enough stink that they decide not to keep him, but we can't assume that would happen.

So Gordon's part of the deal. You're right that saying the trade was a good idea because they got the #1 pick is a questionable thing to do, though.

Well, even if the Bobcats won the lottery, Gordon couldn't have just left for Phoenix: New Orleans had the right to match. Now, maybe if Davis isn't coming he makes a big enough stink that they decide not to keep him, but we can't assume that would happen.

My read on the situation was that if NOH had won the lottery, they do not match on Gordon, as the team would be very far away from contention. As it was, they came very close to not matching.

So Gordon's part of the deal. You're right that saying the trade was a good idea because they got the #1 pick is a questionable thing to do, though.

Gordon is part of the deal, but Gordon is on a max deal now. He has very little surplus value (imo, his value is negative), so that isn't a big plus.

Just, in basketball terms, it turned out to be the right move for New Orleans.

That was never the issue, as I have said. Some Lakers fans went there out of frustration, but it wasn't really about that--it was about the conflict of interest built into the situation, and the possibility remains (and is fairly strong, actually, IMO) that Mark Cuban will wind up with Chris Paul and Dwight Howard on his team. Simmons can trust Stern if he likes; I choose not to.

So, as is the case with about 95% of what he says about the Lakers, Simmons doesn't get it.

On the 5% side, however, he is probably right in his assertion that the Lakers are too old and too slow on defense to win the championship as constructed, and that is why Howard would really matter. I think Kupchak and Buss believe this as well, and that is why the Lakers are still trying to get Howard and are apparently willing to trade for him even without his being willing to commit to extending.

According to whom? That does not square with my understanding of the situation.

Gordon is part of the deal, but Gordon is on a max deal now. He has very little surplus value (imo, his value is negative), so that isn't a big plus.

OK, so what's the surplus value from the LAL/HOU offer? Dragic is in the same situation, where free agency has theoretically removed his surplus value, and I don't see an argument that Martin, Odom or Scola provide surplus value.

I think the Clippers trade was poor value. In addition, the Hornets haven't even made the playoffs, let alone contended, with the guys they got from the trade.

And the Lakers' deal wasn't poor value? There was no deal that would have left them as a contender, or even a realistic playoff team, so using that as a benchmark is completely irrelevant. Maybe they finish 11th instead of 15th, which has negative value, but there was no 15 win upgrade from the team they ended up with.

What they needed were assets for future seasons, and a shot at a franchise player. On that score, the unprotected pick from Minny alone had more value to this Hornets team than anything they would have gotten in the Laker deal. Combine that with being bad enough to have a shot at a good pick themselves. And if they miss, they can still add a guy who will help them down the road, while likely still being bad enough to get another roll next season. I don't think it takes any hindsight to see how this is a much better deal for NO.

Since people are talking about this again, we should remember once again that by doing what he did, Stern not only dicked the Lakers, he also dicked Houston. Scola and Martin were headed for New Orleans because Pau Gasol was headed to Houston, where Morey hoped to build a team around Pau/Nene(signed as a FA)/Lowry.

What we see here again is that when guys as good as Chris Paul change teams, it affects the entire landscape of the league. Daryl Morey has since had to go back to the drawing board and now has Jeremy Lin instead of Kyle Lowry and remains engaged on his Quixotic Quest to land Dwight Howard. Mitch Kupchak and Jim Buss, still trying to get a PG after losing out on Paul, have spent five draft picks, including three first-rounders, getting Sessions, and now Nash--and of course they too are still involved in attempts to acquire Howard.

The Clippers, meanwhile, with Paul on the team, have now emerged as a legitimate big-market ringchasing destination in spite of being run by Sterling, letting Olshey walk, and being coached by Del Negro. They have extended Blake Griffin, retained Chauncey Billups, and signed Lamar Odom (who melted down in part due to how the trade went down, and whose TPE was used by the Lakers to get Nash) and Grant Hill. And the latter three moves were all largely motivated by a desire to retain Paul, who turned down the offer of an extension there, and who may still wind up playing with Howard. Howard, of course, is STILL in Orlando and his situation has affected Dallas, Brooklyn, and Atlanta profoundly as well.

So, when Stern decided to fukc around with a trade involving a guy who can do what Paul does, particularly with the team-up stuff floating around, he affected several franchises for years to come. The argument that Stern himself made for this was that it was "a frozen moment in time", in his words. That may be true in Stern's mind, but the veto was more like an earthquake that continues putting out aftershocks for the league as a whole.

Sure. But in theory, at least, only the interests of New Orleans mattered, right? As a steward of that team, the league office maybe did as well as they could (though obviously subsequent luck may be clouding the picture here).

In his statement regarding the veto, Stern referred only to the interests of New Orleans. Obviously, Dan Gilbert was upset purely about how well the Lakers seemed to make out in the deal -- and that sort of conflict is precisely why the league should not get into such situations. But purely as a steward of the Hornets, one can argue that Stern made the right move.

Edit: And we can probably add this trade to the evidence for the argument that, when trading a superstar, you should go for picks and prospects, and not solid players who would seem to balance out the "value" each team is giving up.

Sure. But in theory, at least, only the interests of New Orleans mattered, right? As a steward of that team, the league office maybe did as well as they could (though obviously subsequent luck may be clouding the picture here).

In his statement regarding the veto, Stern referred only to the interests of New Orleans. Obviously, Dan Gilbert was upset purely about how well the Lakers seemed to make out in the deal -- and that sort of conflict is precisely why the league should not get into such situations. But purely as a steward of the Hornets, one can argue that Stern made the right move.

Agreed. I hated the league takeover, precisely because of the inherent conflict of intrest it presents, and I think it's perfectly right that Stern and co should take a lot of heat for that. But once they've gone there? I think then there is a fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and a moral obligation to the Hornets' fans to act that role as well as they possibly can. If this had been Dolan nixing a deal, people would have just shrugged and moved on.

I don't think it was wrong for Stern to tell the Hornets not to trade Paul to the Lakers or to tell them to get prospects/draft picks instead of veterans, but it should have been done before Demps started any kind of negotiations. Doing it at the last second makes it look like he would have been okay with it if not for Gilbert's whining.

In that Game of Thrones-themed piece, Simmons points out that with hindsight it appears that Stern did the right thing in vetoing the Chris Paul-to-LA deal.

As long as he's willing to be consistent I'm OK with that. With hindsight, the Gasol trade was not "gift-wrapped for the Lakers", but a mutually beneficial trade, since Memphis not only got an equal Gasol in Marc, they got a cheaper player (for a few years at least) who hits his stride just as the rest of the team became playoff relevant.

According to whom? That does not square with my understanding of the situation.

Obviously, I am probably not as clued-in as you are on the situation, but there were a number of articles that seemed to cast doubt on it. For example here:

Although the Hornets have indicated in the past that they would match any offer for Gordon, Demps declined on Wednesday to confirm whether the team still intended to do so.

I could be way off, but that was my (admittedly somewhat hazy) recollection.

If this had been Dolan nixing a deal, people would have just shrugged and moved on.

It's news when an owner gets cold feet after a deal has been completed by his GM.

Also, is Gordon really better than Kevin Martin? They both appear to be poor defenders and Martin is the better shooter. Gordon is a marginally better passer, but he gives it up more often also. Gordon is a shockingly poor rebounder, and obviously, there are the health issues.

Although the Hornets have indicated in the past that they would match any offer for Gordon, Demps declined on Wednesday to confirm whether the team still intended to do so.

That's nothing more than generic GM speak, the usual stuff when the matching team makes the signing team sweat out the waiting period. As I posted here anytime Gold Star hinted at NO not matching, it just didn't make sense and it was only coming from Phoenix/Gordon. Nothing that I saw during the entire process made me think NO wouldn't match; there was discussion on the thread here about Phoenix with Gordon, so perhaps that's impacting your recollection.

Nazr may go to chi (not BRK); Asik replacement?

Yes, for the minimum. And Bellini to the Bulls for the BAE is rumored now, too. Of course, outside of the Korver trade for jackshit (because I bet almost anything the Bulls don't use the TPE - actually, if they use the BAE they're up against the hard cap and cannot use the full value of the TPE), I don't know any of the Bulls moves this offseason are official yet, Hinrich included. The Bulls have until midnight tomorrow to match on Asik; they've just waited of that to finish before doing anything else. It boggles my mind the Bulls have let themselves do absolutely nothing while Houston's taking their damn sweet time getting that finished.

The Bulls have gotten significantly worse, IMO, from last year to this (because of how much they relied on their bench to be such a great regular season team).

Also, is Gordon really better than Kevin Martin? They both appear to be poor defenders and Martin is the better shooter. Gordon is a marginally better passer, but he gives it up more often also. Gordon is a shockingly poor rebounder, and obviously, there are the health issues.

Gordon's 23 and has gotten considerably better each of the last two years. Martin is 29 and has missed a decent amount of time himself.

It's quite possible Gordon's career will end up resembling Martin's in value, but he has an OK shot at being better than Martin, and, in any case, New Orleans is likely getting the best years of Gordon's career, whereas Martin seems likely to decline over the next five years.

With hindsight, the Gasol trade was not "gift-wrapped for the Lakers", but a mutually beneficial trade, since Memphis not only got an equal Gasol in Marc,

Sure, but it took 4 years and a LOT of luck for a post hoc rationalization of that trade to emerge. A scrub and a 2nd round pick for a superstar in his prime? When the justification for a trade hinges upon a 48th pick developing into a star, it's going to get widely criticized every time, and rightfully so, IMO. Even though a few 2nd round picks have turned out to be great players (M.Gasol, Ginobili, Millsap, Boozer, Arenas, etc), they're just not a very valuable commodity at the time. That trade ends up being horribly unfair 99 percent of the time.

I actually agree with Laker fans who think the Paul veto was more about Stern screwing LA than it was about his doing what he thought was best for New Orleans. That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Gasol fiasco was front and center on his mind when he made that choice. THAT was the trade he should've voided, and now it's like he's trying to fix his mistake (and as has already been pointed out, doesn't seem to notice or care that he also screwed Houston in the process).

Sure, but it took 4 years and a LOT of luck for a post hoc rationalization of that trade to emerge. A scrub and a 2nd round pick for a superstar in his prime? When the justification for a trade hinges upon a 48th pick developing into a star, it's going to get widely criticized every time, and rightfully so, IMO. Even though a few 2nd round picks have turned out to be great players (M.Gasol, Ginobili, Millsap, Boozer, Arenas, etc), they're just not a very valuable commodity at the time. That trade ends up being horribly unfair 99 percent of the time.

Lakers gave up more than a scrub and a 2, they also traded 2 first rounders. The 2nd rounder just happened to be the one player who panned out. But it's true that considering these would be late first rounders, it was likely that Memphis would not get great value back.

As for Marc Gasol, it didn't take him 4 years to make the trade look decent. He's been a productive starter all 4 years, and his stats look about the same. Maybe it took people 4 years to notice as the team around him improved.

Gordon's 23 and has gotten considerably better each of the last two years.

Yeah, his wardrobe was top notch last year.

Is it possible they are tanking to some degree? Would that necessarily be a bad move, given the uncertainty with Rose?

This is what I think. I think that they're looking at next season, seeing two of their top three players missing significant time, and just packing it in. I don't know where I stand on it. And, while Asik is the one piece I hate to see go, I'm still not sure how valuable of a piece he is.

I think the Bulls have such a good system on defense and offense (when Rose is playing) that it's kind of hard to tell how good some of their bench guys are. Asik's contract looks like a serious overpay to me and while Mohammad won't be as good, they might be able to find a free agent or second rounder in a year who can replace Asik. I think that Watson, Brewer, Korver and Lucas are probably a bit overrated too and that Hinrich, Bellineli, Butler and Teague can probably match their production.

But in theory, at least, only the interests of New Orleans mattered, right?

Sure. Like I said, trust Stern if you want to. I don't. Remember that in the 24 hours prior to the Paul deal going down, there were big headlines at ESPN: Lakers after Paul and Howard! And a bunch of guys here moaned and groaned about it. If the Lakers had gotten Paul and Howard less than a week after the new CBA had been signed, there would have been a huge backlash and Stern and the CBA would have looked stupid. This way, he gets two blingy teams in LA, (Lob City! The Battle of LA!), defended by a lot of people since he screwed the Lakers and they enjoy seeing that, and now he gets props for the way the deal has turned out for NO. But at the end of the day, Stern is saying, "Trust me. These other factors and what the other owners thought had nothing to do with my decision."

Another thing, along with the Gilbert email and Cuban's running his mouth while manuevering to get the same players, is that in the initial round of negotiations, Olshey was reportedly reluctant to give up either the Minnesota pick or Eric Gordon, which is supposedly why Demps went with the Lakers deal. Once the league got into it, however, Olshey gave up both.

Finally, as noted above, there is no serious indication that Stern told Demps either

a) I will not approve any deal that brings in veterans with high salaries.
or
b) I will be watching this very carefully.

Stern spun it that way later, and an (admittedly biased) Houston source said that the idea that the deal wasn't closed and Demps was not under the impression that it was his call to make was "an outright lie."

Bringing it back to Howard, as I have said, I have never thought that "what Dwight wants" is all that mysterious. He wants to play with Paul or Williams on a contending team, preferably in a big market. This has gone on so long in part because for a variety of reasons, he has not been able to make that happen. Three of the definitive things that Howard has done/said along with all of the back-and-forth indicate this: First, he opted-in for this year, which means that if he wants to, he can hit FA at the same time Paul does. Second, once Williams (and Johnson) were pretty much locked in in Brooklyn, he said "Trade me to Brooklyn." Third, he had his agent deny reports that he would sign an extension with the Lakers if traded there. And of course, Paul has said he will not sign an extension with the Clippers right now and will explore FA, even though they re-upped Griffin and kept Billups, the latter of which Paul supposedly lobbied the FO very heavily to do. Obviously, money plays into that, but I would be very surprised if Paul and Howard are not communicating about the situation.

The defense of Stern--what he did worked for the Hornets--is reasonable on a simple level. But there is no reason at all to believe that this other stuff (as well as a purported desire to keep the Hornets in NO for political and personal reasons) didn't enter his head or affect what happened, and there are ongoing repercussions for the league as a whole.

As for Marc Gasol, it didn't take him 4 years to make the trade look decent. He's been a productive starter all 4 years, and his stats look about the same. Maybe it took people 4 years to notice as the team around him improved.

True, but that's still a trade that had a very slim chance of working out fairly for Memphis. It defied some pretty long odds.

I actually agree with Laker fans who think the Paul veto was more about Stern screwing LA than it was about his doing what he thought was best for New Orleans.

I don't really think that in terms that stark, actually. I just don't believe that the Lakers/CBA/buzz/backlash/other owners/Clippers were not a big part of Stern's calculus in making the decision that he did. Those kinds of issues are what define conflict of interest in some respects.

That is if you assume that Memphis' FO knew as much about Marc Gasol as you and Simmons did. Since they had traded for his older brother on draft night, I find that highly unlikely.

At work so I don't want to take the time to look it up, but did Memphis have any draft picks that year before Marc was taken at #48? If not, then I might concede that this could've been the case. But if they did and took inferior players instead, then I find the above defense hard to believe. If they knew M.Gasol was going to be what he is, then why not draft him themselves and trade Pau for someone else?

I don't really think that in terms that stark, actually. I just don't believe that the Lakers/CBA/buzz/backlash/other owners/Clippers were not a big part of Stern's calculus in making the decision that he did. Those kinds of issues are what define conflict of interest in some respects.

I know, I wasn't really referring to the Laker fans on this board. But many of the ones I know personally seemed to think it was a deliberate middle finger from Stern to the Lakers in an attempt to show that he was serious about his efforts to provide competitive balance and help end big market/small market discrepancies.

Is it possible they are tanking to some degree? Would that necessarily be a bad move, given the uncertainty with Rose?

I don't think they can tank enough to miss the playoffs. The way I see it now, there's only 5 locks in the East: Miami, Boston, Brooklyn, New York and Indiana (not necessarily in that order). Philly, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Orlando (if Howard is there all year, they make it; if not, they don't, so it's just easier to put them on the bubble) are maybes. I think Cleveland and Washington are still a year away. I don't see Toronto, Detroit, or Charlotte making it in any scenario. If Rose misses all season, if Deng does end up having the surgery and misses half the year/isn't 100% the rest, if Boozer has a normal Boozer injury year, and if Noah had more ankle problems, then they'll definitely miss the playoffs. If 2 or 3 or those things happen, they still could maybe sneak in. But considering they will be paying the tax this year, I wouldn't say they're actively tanking.

I think that Watson, Brewer, Korver and Lucas are probably a bit overrated too and that Hinrich, Bellineli, Butler and Teague can probably match their production.

The former guys all looked better in the system/on this team than the latter 4 (and there's no question it's a big drop from Asik to Mohammed defensively), but replacement is a clear step down (maybe not Hinrich, but he will be a step down from Watson's 11-12).

At work so I don't want to take the time to look it up, but did Memphis have any draft picks that year before Marc was taken at #48? If not, then I might concede that this could've been the case. But if they did and took inferior players instead, then I find the above defense hard to believe. If they knew M.Gasol was going to be what he is, then why not draft him themselves and trade Pau for someone else?

I agree with your general point, but I think it is pretty likely that his value improved quite a bit in the time between when he was drafted at #48 and and when he was traded to Memphis. He was the MVP of the Spanish League around that time, but the trade might have been in the middle of the season. I remember some speculation that he would potentially have been a mid first round pick if he was going into the draft the next year.

At the time, Love wasn't near the lock that he is now. This one was pretty defensible.

I was on vacation during that draft and recall thinking, "huh? I thought we were building around Jefferson?" The next two years reinforced that confusion, but it worked out for the best. I also recently noticed that in a couple of mock drafts, Love was slated to go further down, as low as 9, even leading up to the draft.